Order in D.Dis.R.P.301/2016 D2 dated:

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E.ADMN.DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-34. Monday the 24 th day of April, Two thousand and Seventeen. Present: Dr.M.Veera Shanmugha Moni, Commissioner. R.P.No.301/2016 D2 Between K.Devasundari...Petitioner. And 1.The Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn.Department, Villupuram. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE Admn.Department, Thiruvannamalai. 3. The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Puthira Kameswarar Aalayam, Gillavaradarajar Aalayam, Arnipalayam, Arni, Thiruvannamalai... Respondents. In the matter of Arulmigu Puthira Kameswarar Aalayam, Gillavaradarajar Aalayam, Arnipalayam, Arni, Thiruvannamalai. The Revision Petition filed under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959) against the order dated of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn Department, Villupuram in Pro.Rc.No.1456/2016 in rejecting the petitioner s representation. Order in D.Dis.R.P.301/2016 D2 dated: The above Revision petition came up for final hearing before me on in the presence of Thiru.S.L.Venkatesan, Counsel for the petitioner and Thiru.N.Sathyamoorthy Counsel for the 3 rd respondent. Upon hearing their arguments and having perused the connected records and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed. ORDER The above Revision Petition was filed u/s.21 of the Act against the order dated of the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE Admn. Department, Villupuram in pro.rc.no.1456/2016 in rejecting the petitioner s representation. 2. The petitioner has stated that the Originally the order of the 1 st respondent is bad and do not consider her long occupation and protection of the temple. The 1 st respondent ought to have consider B Memo issued by the Revenue Department to

2 2 prove her genunity. She has handover the land to the 3 rd respondent after passing decree in O.S.No.31/2006. The temple land 3.52 cents remaining part of 40 cents lands belong to Government promboke land in which she was resided only 5 cents of land hence she was not resided in the temple land but the 3 rd respondent was periodically disturbed the petitioner. The 1 st respondent is ought to have received the records of the Temple and from the Revenue Officer but he decided upon only statement of petitioner. The petitioner is having deserted daughter and paralytic attack husband and also she never disturbed the devotees and the temple instead of giving help. The order passed on the basis of Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras direction only hence the 1 st respondent is not considered the petitioner s material facts and statements. The order is hurriedly passed by the 1 st respondent hence liable to be set aside. The petitioner is established the several trees and valuable trees around the temple and formed good green environment. 3. In the counter affidavit the 2 nd respondent has stated that she encroached upon the Temple property situated behind Alm.Puthira Kameshwarar Aalayam, Pudu Kamur Road, Aranipalayam,Arani Town, Thiruvannamalai District, in 0-1 Block comprised in T.S.No.18/2, to the extent of 5 cents which is the subject property of this revision petition. After coming to know about her encroachment of the said Temple property, the Respondent instructed her to vacate and hand over the said property to the above said Temple. The petitioner has claimed that the said property is not belonging to Temple and it is a Government Poromboke Land and she has been paying the 'B' Memo charges to the Revenue Authorities s that the petitioner herself has filed a suit in O.S.No.31/2006 before District Munsif Court, Arani.,Thiruvannamalai District, to decide the rightful ownership in respect of property under her possession and enjoyment and for permanent injunction restraining the temple from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. The said suit was dismissed on , on a finding that the property in dispute belongs to the Temple. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Munsif Court, Arani in O.S.No.31/2006. Therefore the said -Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.31/2006 become final. Even after the dismissal of the above said suit, filed by the petitioner, she has not vacated a portion to an extent of 5 cents, which she is now residing there. She requested through her representation dated to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE(A) Department, Villupuram requested to fix Rent for the superstructure, raised by the petitioner in the said property measuring to an extent of 5 cents and in the event of such fixation

3 3 she is willing to pay the rent fixed by the Temple Authorities without any default. She has also filed a writ petition viz.,w.p.no.6386/2016 before the Hon'ble High court and by the order dated the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE (A) Department, Villupuram to consider the representation of the petitioner dated and disposed the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Accordingly the 2 nd Respondent has conducted the Enquiry and passed the Impugned order dated The Learned Joint Commissioner has elaborately discussed about her representation and other request made by the petitioner, and he has pointed out that she came into the property as a Lessee, but after paying '8' Memo she has stayed in the said property for more than 10 years without paying any rent to the Temple Authorities. The said property is situated behind the Temple is required for the Temple for the purpose of the convenient of the devotees, and the public in general especially during the Festival time and it is more useful for the free movement of the devotees and the Temple employees, authorities etc who are all participating, during the festival period, Since the said property is required for the Temple for above said purpose and also for other Temple's use, they are not in a position to lease out the subject property measuring to an extent of 5 cents to the petitioner. Hence the Joint Commissioner has rejected the petition and directed this Respondent to remove the encroachment in accordance with law as contemplated under HR & CE Act 22 of I heard Thiru.S.L.Venkatesan, counsel for the petitioner and Thiru.N.Sathyamoorthy, Counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the relevant records and written submissions filed by both the counsel. 5. The impugned order was passed by the Joint Commissioner, villupuram by considering the representation dated of the petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in the order dated made in W.P.No.6386/2016. In the said representation the petitioner had prayed to treat her as a tenant by fixing the rent for the superstructure constructed by her in the suit property. The said representation was rejected by the Joint commissioner, Villupuram. 6. The petitioner had got the lease of the suit property in public auction. Later she has claimed that the suit property is not belonging to the temple, that it is a Govt Poromboke land and that she has been paying the 'B' memo charges to the Revenue authorities. She has also filed a suit in O.S.No.31/2006 before the District Munsif Court, Arani to decide the ownership of the property and the same was dismissed on

4 declaring that the suit property belongs to the temple. She had enjoyed the property for more than 10 years without paying any rent to the temple. 7.Further in the impugned order, the Joint Commissioner has observed as follows:- òif gl fÿ _y«âu nfhæè braš myty k W«Ï él«f J fs MŒÎ brœj tªj XŒÎ bg w tuthœ Jiz M Áa Mya ãy fÿ ÂU.nf.guRuh«M»nahç m iffë go nk go M»uä ò Ïl«ÂU nfhæš eªjtd«ga gh L F«, m él«nfhæy F bj g f«cÿs bju _y«jh g j fÿ nfhæy F tªj bršy«ãiyæš, ghijæ xukhf cÿs Ϫj M»uä ò g j fë ngh Ftu J F ÂUéHh fhy fëš ÏilôW V gl jyh«v W bjçé f g LŸsJ. From this, it is clear thatp, the suit property is very much required by the temple for public purpose. If the same is given on lease, it will cause inconvenience to the public visiting the temple and obstruct the free movement of the devotees. Further, the petitioner has denied the temple to get its legitimate share of income from the property for more than a decade and failed in her attempts to get title to the property before all the forums. Thereafter she came with said representation with an intention to retain possession. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner after detailed discussion. For the foregoing reasons stated supra, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Villupuram and it does not warrant any interference. Accordingly the order dated of the Joint Commissioner, Villupuram is hereby confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. However it is made clear that the temple should not lease out the said property to any person in future. /typed to dictation/ /t.c.f.b.o./ Sd./- M.Veera Shanmugha Moni Commissioner Superintendent To 1. The Petitioner through Thiru.S.L.Venkatesan, Advocate, No.135, Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai The 3 rd respondent through Thiru.N.Sathyamoorthy, Advocate,No.62, New Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai

5 Copy to 3. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Dept., Villupuram. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Admn.Dept., Thiruvannamalai. 5. Extra 5